No one is above the law but all deserve the protection of the law

Jun 22, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Dennis Chabrol is perhaps Guyana’s finest reporter. At Thursday’s press conference, he showed his worth when he asked the President a simple question.

He queried if the American government was kept in the dark over the allegations against the Mohameds and what was the legal basis for revoking the cambio licence of the family’s business.

The President could not provide a straight answer. He found himself in a kerfuffle. He danced around the question in a manner reminiscent of his performance on the dance floor during the PPP’s Congress.

Earlier at his press conference, the President said that no one is above the law. But he did not say which law he was referring to: American law or Guyanese law.

The principle that no one is above the law is a feature of the rule of law. This tenet ensures that all individuals, regardless of status, power, or influence, are held accountable for their actions within the confines of the law.

However, the President needs to be reminded that this principle must be balanced with the equally important notion that everyone is entitled to protection under the law, including the constitutional and legal safeguards that are the bedrock of any sovereign nation.

In the context of Guyana, recent actions influenced by external pressures, particularly from the United States, raise significant questions about the sovereignty of Guyanese law and the protection of its citizens under the Constitution of Guyana.

The situation involving the Mohamed family is illustrative of this tension. While it is imperative that no individual or entity is immune from legal scrutiny, the actions taken by the Guyana government against the Mohameds based on allegations from the United States, without clear evidence of local law violations, highlight a troubling development.  This development suggests a potential erosion of Guyanese sovereignty and the undue influence of foreign powers on local governance.

Firstly, it is essential to establish the distinction between local laws and foreign laws with extra-territorial effects. The Constitution of Guyana, like those of many sovereign nations, provides the legal framework within which all citizens and entities must operate. This framework includes protections against arbitrary actions by the government. It ensures that any deprivation of rights must be justified by due process and evidence under local laws.

The imposition of foreign sanctions, such as those from the United States, does not inherently constitute a violation of Guyanese law. Therefore, actions taken by the Guyanese government against its citizens or businesses should be based on breaches of local laws, not on foreign allegations alone.

The principle of sovereignty dictates that the government of Guyana should govern based on the interests and laws of its own nation. When foreign entities, like the United States, impose sanctions, it is within their right to do so based on their legal frameworks and interests. However, it becomes problematic when these sanctions directly influence the actions of the Guyanese government without due process under Guyanese law. This not only undermines the sovereignty of Guyana but also sets a precedent where foreign powers can indirectly dictate local governance and legal outcomes.

It is understandable that local banks must comply with international regulations to maintain their global operations. Local banks are part of an international system that involve the movement of currency across borders and therefore would have to be careful about the international transactions they undertake with American banks on behalf of sanctioned individuals and companies.

But Guyana’s financial sector’s international obligations should not be conflated with the legal obligations of the government to its own citizens. The government must act in accordance with its local laws and with regard the common law duty of due process, just as the Americans do with its citizens and companies.

Burnham and Jagan would never have bent the way our leaders did to an American edict. They would have demanded the evidence before acting against the sanctioned parties. This is because they understood the responsibilities of governments in upholding national sovereignty. They knew that weak leadership that capitulates to foreign demands without due process threatens the foundational principles of national sovereignty.

The concept of national sovereignty is not merely a theoretical ideal. It is a practical necessity for the functioning of a democratic state. Sovereignty ensures that a nation’s laws and governance are determined by its own people and institutions, free from undue external influence. This is particularly important in a globalized world where powerful nations can exert significant pressure on smaller states. Upholding sovereignty involves a delicate balance between engaging in international cooperation and maintaining independent legal and political systems.

Before acting impulsively, the government needed to make rigorous assessment of any allegations made by foreign entities, ensuring that any response was grounded in local law and backed by evidence. The protection of citizens’ rights under the Constitution of Guyana should always be paramount, and any deprivation of these rights must be justified through transparent and lawful processes.

The government must resist becoming a puppet of foreign powers and instead uphold the rule of law based on its own constitutional and other laws. By doing so, it can ensure that justice is served in a manner that respects the rights and protections of all its citizens, preserving the integrity and sovereignty of the nation.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• Dennis Chabrol, Law, Mohameds, Peeping Tom, Protection

---